STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. T. VENKATARAMANA ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein the accused persons stand acquitted in regard to a charge under S. 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Ss. 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1988 of the three charges punishable under Ss. 148, 324 and 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which found them guilty. As regards the charge under S. 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to sentence them with imprisonment for a term of two years. Accused 4, 7 and 8 were convicted under S. 147 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The second charge that was framed against all the accused persons was under S. 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing harm to PWs 1 and 2 and A-1 and A-5 were convicted under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. A-4 was convicted under S. 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The last charge was under S. 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused persons, that is to say A-1 to A-8, and the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of such an offence and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE matter, however, was placed before the High Court in appeal by the accused persons wherein the High Court recorded that the evidence led in by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and the prosecution is bestowed with doubts and difficulties, the benefit of which must necessarily accrue to the accused and on that score, set aside the conviction and set the accused free immediately.

(3.) THIS aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in the manner the first appellate court ought to have examined or dealt with. The first appellate court has an obligation to scan the evidence and come to its own conclusion, not that a mere acceptance of the reasoning of the Sessions Judge but that an independent application of mind is required to be applied. Unfortunately, however, we do not find such an application by reason where for we feel it obliged to remit the matter back to the High Court for being dealt with having regard to the evidence on record afresh.